SUNHAM HOME FASHIONS LLC v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, aka Lumbermens Mutual Group, aka Kemper Casualty Insurance Company, Third-Party Defendant-Counter Claimant-Counter Defendant-Appellee. (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant Sunham Home Fashions, LLC (“Sunham”) challenges the District Court’s ruling granting partial summary judgment to Defendant-Counter Claimant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee Diamond State Insurance Company (“Diamond State”) as to its liability, as an umbrella insurer, for Sunham’s legal costs in earlier legal proceedings; and its ruling granting summary judgment to Third-Party Defendant-Counter Claimant-Counter Defendant-Appellee Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company (“LMC”) as to its liability, as Sunham’s primary insurer, for the same costs. Sunham also appeals the District Court’s denial of its motion for partial summary judgment against Diamond State.  ¹

We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

I: Standing

We turn first to the issue of appellate standing raised by Sunham’s appeal of the grant of summary judgment for LMC. “We must address any jurisdictional standing question first, before deciding a case on the merits.” Rothstein v. Am. Int’l Group, Inc., 837 F.3d 195, 202 (2d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude, despite LMC’s claims that Sunham lacks standing because it was not a party to the underlying judgment, that Sunham has standing to appeal the judgment in favor of LMC.

As a general matter, “[f]ederal appellate jurisdiction is limited by the appellant’s personal stake in the appeal.” Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank, Jackson, Miss. v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 336, 100 S.Ct. 1166, 63 L.Ed.2d 427 (1980). Sunham clearly has a personal stake in the judgment for LMC, since—if we were to differ with the District Court as to its grant of summary judgment for LMC—that might affect Sunham’s ability to seek reimbursement from LMC. The District Court’s decision as to LMC was thus sufficiently adverse to Sunham, so that an appeal of that decision is properly before us.

II: Merits

For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court, we hold that partial summary judgment was correctly denied for Sunham and correctly granted for Diamond State, and that summary judgment was correctly granted for LMC.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Sunham on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The appeal was stayed in 2012 on the motion of LMC after an injunction in an Illinois court placed it in rehabilitation and liquidation proceedings. The stay was lifted in 2019 on the motion of Sunham after this Court concluded that LMC would not be irreparably harmed if the case proceeded.